The story so far! In short: Matt Giwer (firstname.lastname@example.org) had been told multiple times not to send Rich Green (email@example.com) private email, but did so anyway. That email was bounced by a procmail script which said, correctly, that it was _private_email_ that was being returned, and added: "I am _not_ sending a copy to firstname.lastname@example.org" (emphasis added). Mr. Giwer's response was to assume, wrongly, that this was a response to a _public_post_. (Apparently, Mr. Giwer screwed up and both posted and emailed his article, without meaning to. It happens. The sensible thing to do would be to realize it, admit it, apologize, and try not to do it again. Mr. Giwer is not, however, sensible!) Mr. Giwer immediately concluded that it _had_ to be an _automated_ script that would respond to _all_ his public posts. Since he has been posting 80-90 times a day on average, he was probably quite worried about being self-mailbombed by this supposed script! So he fired off a note to Rich Green, and he _did_ sent a copy to Mr. Green's root, just because that's the kind of guy he is. However, since email@example.com happens to be Rich Green himself, Mr. Green's procmail script again bounced that copy back to Mr. Giwer. One would think it would tip off Mr. Giwer that he got the same response from firstname.lastname@example.org that he (supposedly) got from a script which (supposedly) searched through Usenet for his articles. One would think -- but this is not what happened. Instead, he chose to email email@example.com, hoping he'd have better luck there. (He did not, as we'll see.) Later he threatened Stanford, saying they're a "legitimate target," and started appending his erroneous side of the story to other, totally unrelated, articles. His mistake has been explained to him but he doesn't believe it. He still continues to insist that Mr. Green is running an automated Usenet-scanning script of some kind, even after Mr. Green publicly posted the procmail file that handles his email! Therefore, this cannot be classified as a simple misunderstanding -- this is a lie. Contacting someone else's sysadmin and lying about them supposedly abusing the net is itself an abuse of the net. Threatening to make that person's computer system (in this case, the entire computer network of Stanford University!) "a target" is abuse of the net. Therefore, this information is filed both under giwer.matt/lies and giwer.matt/net-abuse: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/lies http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse Here is the documentation: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/green.rich/lie-stanford.001 Matt Giwer makes the accusation described above. And, as he says, "That makes Stanford University the same piece of harrassing shit that is Greenie is." And "of course copies are being sent to [Mr. Green's system's] root." Mr. Giwer quotes Rich Green's procmail email with ID <199606220857.BAA29851@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>, responding to Matt Giwer's _email_ (note, email and not a post) with ID <199606220857.BAA24426@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com>. Note that, by the message-IDs, Mr. Giwer's email was sent at 8:57 AM, and Mr. Green's procmail bounced it also at 8:57 AM. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/green.rich/lie-stanford.002 Giwer repeats himself, adding, "his university is operating an automated harrassment script" and then the enigmatic phrase: "If this continues Stanford is a legitimate target." Target for what? He says: "The greenie game is to pretend my public posts are in fact private email and then complain about it." Sorry, Mr. Giwer, but there's no pretending about it. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/green.rich/lie-stanford.003 Rich Graves, of Stanford University, points out that (1) it's highly unlikely that a Usenet article would have gotten from Netcom to Stanford in five minutes; and (2) from the In-Reply-To field quoted in Rich Green's email (and subsequently quoted by Mr. Giwer), it is obvious that what was responded to was not a Giwer _article_, but Giwer _email_. Mr. Graves suggests that Mr. Giwer might try claiming that the In-Reply-To field is a forged invention, and that if so, the matter can be resolved by asking Netcom to confirm it. Mr. Giwer doesn't even pick up on this idea; instead, as we shall see, he continues to claim that the email did not really exists, but offers no proof or explanation. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/green.rich/lie-stanford.004 Rich Green confirms Rich Graves' guess. The sysadmin who had received Mr. Giwer's cc to firstname.lastname@example.org had contacted Mr. Green, who replied. In this posting, he quotes the email he wrote to that sysadmin. As he says: "Mr. Giwer is apparently not able to remember whether he responded in e-mail or via posting news." http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/green.rich/lie-stanford.005 Another Giwer post claiming the same as lie-stanford.001. Mr. Giwer quotes Rich Green's procmail email with ID <199606220911.CAA29953@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>, responding to Matt Giwer's _email_ (note, email and not a post) with ID <199606220910.CAA15193@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com>. Note that, by the message-IDs, Mr. Giwer's email was sent at 9:10 AM, and Mr. Green's procmail bounced it at 9:11 AM. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/green.rich/lie-stanford.006 Another Giwer post claiming the same. Mr. Giwer quotes Rich Green's procmail email with ID <199606220956.CAA00284@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>, responding to Matt Giwer's _email_ (note, email and not a post) with ID <199606220956.CAA24645@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com>. Note that, by the message-IDs, Mr. Giwer's email was sent at 9:56 AM, and Mr. Green's procmail bounced it also at 9:56 AM. http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/green.rich/lie-stanford.007 Mr. Giwer confirms precisely what it is he is claiming (which, as we have already seen, is wrong): "I am not talking about mail. I am talking about newsgroup posts. That is what the bot is dealing with. It is taking NG posts and turning them into email to me." http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/green.rich/lie-stanford.008 Mr. Giwer responds to a post from Hilary Ostrov by (again) calling her a "fat broad" and appending his totally irrelevant article about Mr. Green.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor